JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against judgment dated 25.09.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3414 of 2020, titled as Basant Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, to a limited extent whereby claim of the petitioners, on regularization, for grant of annualincrement for services rendered by them on contractual basis has been rejected by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, SLP (c) No.10399 of 2020, with observation that in para-9 of the said SLP, the Supreme Court has categorically held that it is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. 2. Another limb of impugned judgment granting benefits to the petitioners-appellants of their contractual service for pensionary benefits by directing to treat the same as qualified service for the purpose of pension has not been assailed either by the appellants or by the respondent-State. 3. In CWP No.850 of 2010, titled as Paras Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 19.10.2010, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (H) 887 , it was held that ad hoc service followed by regular service in the same post could be counted for the purpose of increments. 4. Approving the aforesaid judgment in Paras Ram’s case, a Division Bench of this High Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 15.07.2010, had observed that appellant in Sita Ram’s case was entitled for counting of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, but he was not entitled for counting the said ad hoc service for the purpose of seniority. 5. It is also apt to record that judgments in Paras Ram’s and Sita Ram’s cases have attained finality. 6. In CWP No.4550 of 2010 , titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another , decided on 16.12.2010 alongwith connected matters, in case of tenure appointees, direction was given to grant annual increment during period of tenure services and to count the said period for the purpose of pension like ad hoc appointees in the Education Department. However, issue related to contract Teachers was kept open to be decided by the Authority. 7. However, issue related to contract Teachers was kept open to be decided by the Authority. 7. In CWP No.5400 of 2014 , titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another , decided on 21.11.2014 , contract service followed by regular appointment without interruption was directed to be considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 8. Special Leave to Appeal CC No(s) 18898 of 2015 titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another vs. Veena Devi , preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.10.2015 9. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No.8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.06.2015, had held that services rendered by the petitioners therein, who were appointed Vidya Upasaks on honorarium basis which was followed by regular appointment as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs), were entitled for counting of their service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments. 10. After dismissal of SLP(C) No.183 of 2016 , titled as State of H.P. & others vs. Joga Singh and others, Review Petition (Civil) No.274 of 2017 filed in the said SLP (C) No.183 of 2016 , was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.03.2017. 11. In similar case CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 26.12.2019, after taking into consideration Rule 17 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS Pension Rules), and other pronouncements of this High Court as well as Supreme Court, Division Bench of this Court had directed to count period of contract service followed by regular service as qualifying service for granting pension. 12. CWP No.2411 of 2019 , titled as Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 10.01.2020, along with connected matters, by a Division Bench of this High Court. In these matters petitioners, who were not JBT but having qualification as TGT, O.T., Shastri etc., were appointed against sanctioned vacant post(s) of JBT as Vidya Upasak and were regularized as JBTs in the year 2007 after awarding them special JBT certificates. In these matters petitioners, who were not JBT but having qualification as TGT, O.T., Shastri etc., were appointed against sanctioned vacant post(s) of JBT as Vidya Upasak and were regularized as JBTs in the year 2007 after awarding them special JBT certificates. In these matters, it was directed to count contract service followed by regularization against the post of JBT towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules as well as for annual increment, but restricting actual financial benefits to three years prior to filing of writ petitions. 13. It is also an admitted fact that SLP (Civil) No.10399 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Sheela Devi, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 with direction that past service of contractual employee on regularization is to be counted for the purpose of pension and thus judgment in Sheela Devi’s case, referred supra, has attained finality. 14. Undisputedly, SLP(C) Nos.8012-8013 of 2021 , titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdish Chand, has also been dismissed on 7.8.2023 and, thus, judgment in Jagdish Chand’s case has also attained finality. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that in Sheela Devi’s case benefits of counting contract service for annual increment has not been granted and, therefore, has supported the impugned judgment. 16. In Sheela Devi’s case (supra), the High Court had directed to count the contract service for the purpose of qualifying service towards pension. However, the Apex Court, in its order dated 07.08.2023 has directed the respondents/State to count the contract service for the purpose of pension. As a matter of fact, counting of contract service for the purpose of qualifying service towards pension and ‘counting of contract service for the purpose of pension’ means one and the same thing. In both directions, there is mandate to consider the contract service for determining pension. 17. Following the aforesaid judgments in Sheela Devi’s and Jagdish Chand’s cases, this Court in CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, titled as Oma Wati and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , has directed to extend benefit of annual increments and counting of period of contract service followed by regular appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, by observing as under:- “8. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad-hoc appointments. Appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing adhoc/Temporary Teachers depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. When Courts upheld the entitlement of ad-hoc employees for service benefits, State came with Scheme for appointment of Voluntary Teachers. Again, on intervention of the Court, State continued changing the name of Policy but for appointment on exploitative terms. Therefore, we are of the opinion that all these terms are similar temporary appointments irrespective of their nomenclature. Therefore, verdict of the Court regarding extension of service benefits with respect to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature.” 18. Taking into consideration aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this High Court, vide judgment dated 29.8.2023, has decided CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, titled as Sunil Dutt & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, wherein petitioners have been held entitled for counting of contract service, followed by regularization on the same post without interruption, for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments with following observations:- “17… … … ...Needless to say that for counting the service to extend the benefit thereof for pension, annual increment for the relevant period is an essential factor required to be considered for calculating pension. Observations by the Division Bench of this Court in this regard in CWP No.850 of 2010 , titled Paras Ram vs. State of HP and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, as also referred in order dated 15.7.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010 , titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. , are relevant wherein it has been stated that service counted for the purpose of annual increment will be counted for pension also. There is direction for counting the contractual service for pension/pensionary benefits. Counting of service for pension includes, counting of length of service for qualifying service for pension, as well as for quantifying the amount of pension payable by calculating it on the basis of basic pay with addition of increment. Therefore, direction to count service for pension also mandates calculation of pension by granting annual increment for relevant period either actual or notional basis.” 19. Undoubtedly, pension is calculated on the basis of last pay drawn by the employee and last pay of the employee depends upon the Basic Pay earned by the employee on the basis of pay scale as well as annual increments earned by him during his entire service and, therefore, for counting service for pensionary benefits or as a qualifying service towards pension, the annual increments for the said service period, are inevitable to be taken into consideration. It is relevant to record here that it was not the case of the respondent-State that during contract period, services rendered by the appellants were not satisfactory, rather contrary to that considering their services satisfactory their services were regularized by the State-Department. 20. In Sheela Devi’s case, prayer made by the petitioner was only with respect to count past service of her husband, on contract basis, for the purpose of pension. However, it is apt to record that when past contract service is considered valid for counting for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the same period is also to be taken into consideration by granting annual increment because for calculation of pensionary benefits, last pay drawn, determined on the basis of annual increment drawn, is a decisive factor and last pay drawn also depends on the annual increments earned by the employee. Therefore, for calculating and determining pensionary benefits, annual increments and length of service are major relevant factors. 21. Therefore, for calculating and determining pensionary benefits, annual increments and length of service are major relevant factors. 21. Entitlement or disentitlement for annual increments, for contract period service followed by regular appointment on the same post, without interruption, was not a issue and thus was not agitated and decided in Sheela Devi’s case specifically and separately. Though, as discussed supra, at the time of taking into consideration contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, annual increments for the said service are also to be taken into consideration, however, even otherwise, settled position in Paras Ram’s, Sita Ram’s, Joga Singh’s and Jagdish Chand’s cases, mandatory entitlement of an employee for annual increments for the contract period of service followed by regular appointment on the same post, without interruption, cannot be unsettled on the basis of a judgment in which the said issue has not been discussed and decided, particularly when judgment in Joga Singh’s and Jagdish Chand’s cases have attained finality after dismissal of SLPs preferred by the State in those cases. 22. Judgment in Sheela Devi’s case, which declared that contract service period is to be counted for the purpose of pension, cannot be taken a judgment as a denial of annual increments for the said period. 23. As evident from judgment in CWPOA No.195 of 2019 , titled as Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh the moot question adjudicated and decided by the Court was that whether the services of an employee appointed on contractual basis, in temporary capacity, can be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension after regularization of his services. The Division Bench has answered this issue by holding that service rendered by an employee on contract, prior to his regularization, shall be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension. Issue with respect to grant or non-grant of annual increments for the contract service period, after regularization, was neither in issue specifically nor discussed. 24. It is also relevant to record here that Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed i n CWP No.10529 of 2011, titled a s Youdhishther Kumar Sharma vs. The State of H.P. and another, has decided the issue of entitlement of counting contract service in those cases wherein employees had served on contract/temporary basis on different posts but had been regularized or appointed as regular on some other posts. In such a situation, the employee was held entitled for counting of his ad hoc/tenure/temporary service only for the purpose of pension, but not for annual increment. In present case, the facts are entirely different because temporary/contract appointment of petitioner is followed by regularization on the same post without interruption and, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in present case. 25. Though judgment in CWPOA No.5187 of 2020 alongwith connected matters, has been considered by learned Single Judge in Para-3 of the impugned judgment, but by taking into consideration only part of the relief granted to the petitioners therein, regarding counting of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. However, perhaps due to oversight, observations that counting of contract service period for pensionary benefits also includes grant of increment for the said period and direction to grant annual increments for contract service period, on regularization, has been overlooked, which has resulted into passing a judgment by learned Single Judge contrary to the judgment passed by a Division Bench. 26. It is apt to record that the aforesaid judgment in CWPOA No.5187 of 2020 , by the Division Bench, has been passed by taking into consideration judgment in Sheela Devi’s case. In any case, as discussed supra, when contract service is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits, then natural corollary thereof is that for the said period annual increments are also required to be granted. Therefore, learned Single Judge has fallen in error by inferring that in Sheela Devi’s case, on regularization, annual increments for contract service have not been granted or have been denied. 27. On dismissal of SLP in Sheela Devi’s case, the State did not contest the SLP filed in Jagdish Chand’s case and had withdrawn the same, in terms of judgment passed in Sheela Devi’s case. 28. From aforesaid facts, it is apparent that on adjudication of the issue with respect to counting of contract service for pensionary benefits by the Supreme Court, the State did not prefer adjudication of the issue of entitlement for annual increments for the contract service period, after regularization, but withdrew the SLP filed in Jagdish Chand’s case. 29. As discussed supra, counting of contract service for pensionary benefits would entail grant of annual increments for the said period. 29. As discussed supra, counting of contract service for pensionary benefits would entail grant of annual increments for the said period. Therefore, for judgment of Supreme Court in Sheela Devi’s case, dismissing the SLP, and also for withdrawal of SLP by the State in Jagdish Chand’s case, contractual period of service of an employee, followed by regularization on the same post, is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments. 30. A Division Bench of this High Court in CWPOA No.5363 of 2020, titled as Ishwar Verma & others v. H.P. University & others, has observed as under: “15. State, including its functionaries, has to make appointment by following procedure prescribed under Recruitment and Promotion Rules/Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, sometimes, State or its functionaries resort to make appointment without following process prescribed under Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e. dehors of Service Rules but following some procedure prescribed in some valid Policy formulated and adopted by it. 16. Sometimes, not only dehors of Recruitment and Promotion Rules but also without framing or following any valid policy, appointments are made. Such appointment made in last category are not protected by law and/or Courts being backdoor entry. 17. In first two categories, sometimes initial appointments are made on temporary or contract basis and such services are regularized later on. 18. It is now settled that temporary/contract appointee of first category on regularization shall be entitled for counting of temporary/contractual service for all service benefits since their initial date of appointment including seniority, annual increments and pensionary benefits, whereas such appointee of second category, on regularization shall be entitled for annual increment and pensionary benefits etc. but not for seniority.” 31. Similar observation has been made by Division Bench in judgments passed in LPA No.207 of 2023, titled as Subodh Kumar & others v. Rakesh Kumar & others 32. Contract service of the petitioners was followed by regular service, without interruption, on the same post. Therefore, they are definitely entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits. 33. Contract service of the petitioners was followed by regular service, without interruption, on the same post. Therefore, they are definitely entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits. 33. The issue stands already settled in various judgments, including the cases of Joga Singh and Jagdish Chand cases and other matters, but it has not only been implemented by the State in respect of all similarly situated employees and employees are compelled to prefer identical petitions for getting the benefit of judgments of the Supreme Court, which are judgments in rem and based on policy decisions of the State. 34. Legal principles summed up by the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva , (2015) 1 SCC 347 are relevant in present matter, which are: “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 35. In present case also, above referred legal principles contained in Paras 22.1 and 22.3 of the judgment in Arvind Kumar Shrivastva’s case are applicable, because the issue that contract period of service, followed by regular appointment on the same post without interruption, is to be taken for consideration for annual increments and pensionary benefits, is no longer res integra, rather is well settled, and the State has also implemented it, if not thousand but with respect to hundreds of employees, but despite that all similarly situated employees entitled for the said relief are not being treated in the same manner, due to which Court is being engaged to decide the same issue again and again, leading to wastage of time and energy and the resources. 36. Similar view has been taken by Principal Division Bench in LPA No.314 of 2024 , titled as Satish Kumar Banyal & others Versus State of H.P. & others , decided on 03.10.2024, by observing as under :- “8. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the issue concerning the grant of annual increments for service rendered on a contractual basis is covered by several judgments. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the issue concerning the grant of annual increments for service rendered on a contractual basis is covered by several judgments. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & others 2010:HHC:4886- DB. ii) Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & others 2019:HHC:11152-DB. iii) Jagdish Chand vs. State of H.P. & others alongwith connected matters , 2020:HHC:768-DB. iv) Oma Wati & another vs. State of H.P. & others 2023:HHCL9854. v) Sunil Dutt & others vs. State of H.P. & others alongwith connected matters , 2023:HHC:9854 vi) Ram Chand & others vs. State of H.P. & others 2024:HHC:8877. 9. We note that counsel for the respondents says that the prayer made in the writ petition stands addressed as service rendered by the appellants on a contractual basis before regularization was being taken into account to determine ‘Qualifying Service’ for the purposes of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In other words, the argument was that there was no mention of the prayer for grant of annual increments for service rendered on a contract basis. 10. Although that appears to be the situation if one were to read prayer clause no. (i) of the writ petition, the issue has been squarely dealt with by the learned Single Judge upon summarization in the operative portion of the impugned judgment while denying the relief concerning annual increments. For convenience, the operative reasoning of the learned Single Judge on this issue is extracted hereafter: “As far as the prayer of some of the petitioners for grant of annual increments for the services rendered on contract basis is concerned, this Court is rejecting this prayer in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, SLP (c) No. 10399 of 2020 , wherein in para-9, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to categorically hold that “it is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.”” [Emphasis is ours] 10.1 Therefore the issue clearly arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The question then, which arises is: where does one locate the learned Single Judge’s decision on the aspect concerning annual increment? 11. The question then, which arises is: where does one locate the learned Single Judge’s decision on the aspect concerning annual increment? 11. In our view, if an issue arises for consideration on which parties have had their say in a writ action that contains a residuary prayer such as in the instant petition, the relief granted/denied can be located therein. For convenience, the residuary prayer contained in the writ action is extracted hereafter: “Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents under the law” 12. That being the situation, we are inclined to allow the prayer as the issue is squarely covered by the several judgments rendered by this Court, which remain undisturbed. For convenience, the relevant observations made in Sita Ram v. State of HP and Ors .,2010-HHC-4886-DB,are extracted hereafter: “2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant, the petitioner having been recruited through the same recruitment process, he is entitled to have seniority also in respect of the period of ad hoc service. We are afraid that contention cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that initial recruitment was only for ad hoc service. However, this court in Paras Ram’s case had laid down the law that if ad hoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service could be counted for the purpose of increments. It is also settled principle of law that any service that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also . To that extent the appellant is justified in making submission that period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension also. However, so far as the seniority is concerned, the basic norms of seniority will be counted on the date of appointment in regular service, qua those who are already in regular service as on that date. If the claim of the petitioner-appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of affected teachers is before us. Be that as it may. If the claim of the petitioner-appellant is to be accepted, it will unsettle the settled seniority of those regular teachers. It may also not be out of context to note that none of affected teachers is before us. Be that as it may. Since the petitioner-appellant under law is entitled only for counting the ad hoc service, followed by regular service for the purpose of increments and pension, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed subject to the above modification that the period that is counted for the purpose of increment, will count for pension also.” [Emphasis is ours] 12.1 A similar view was also taken by the division bench in Ram Chand and others v. State of H.P. and others 2024:HHC:8877. For convenience, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereafter: “32. Contract service of the petitioners was followed by regular service, without interruption, on the same post. Therefore, they are definitely entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits .” [Emphasis is ours] 13. Therefore, the petitioners being entitled to the grant of benefit of the contractual service, shall have it taken into consideration for grant of annual increment.” 37. It has been invariably noticed that issues, which stood decided once, are being raised by the State repeatedly again and again causing not only wastage of time and energy of the State, but also of the Court as well as poor litigants. Such an act of the State is contrary to the Litigation Policy adopted by the State. 38. Such practice and conduct on the part of the State, because of wastage of precious time of the Court, leads to delay in dispensation of justice to other litigants whose claims or cases are pending adjudication since long. 39. State is expected not to repeat such practice in the cases, which have already been decided by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court and even implemented by the State. 40. 39. State is expected not to repeat such practice in the cases, which have already been decided by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court and even implemented by the State. 40. Accordingly, judgment passed by learned Single Judge is modified with observation that reasoning assigned for deciding CWPOA No.5187 of 2020, shall be mutatis mutandi applicable to the present matter also and appellants shall be entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial benefits to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. 41. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the appellants within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended to them on notional basis. Present appeal is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.